Adverse inferences: The impact of suspect silence on lay perceptions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We conducted three studies that examined how preinterrogation rights decisions could impact lay people's perceptions of suspects. HYPOTHESES: Grounded in the literature on attribution errors and biases, we proposed that suspects who remained silent would be viewed and treated more negatively, generally, and especially when formal invocations were offered, compared to suspects who waived their rights. METHOD: Participants in Studies 1 and 2 acted as the lead detective in the investigation of an online murder simulation. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (informal silence: waived vs. exercised) × 2 (formal silence: waived vs. exercised) between-subjects design. Study 3 used an online vignette (adopted from previous research) where participants were randomly assigned to one of three levels in a between-subjects design: informed that the defendant had either waived or exercised their preinterrogation rights or were not informed of the defendant's decision. In all three studies, participants then judged the suspect's guilt and the interrogation procedures. RESULTS: Overall, we found that suspects who remained silent were viewed and treated more negatively than those who waived their rights. Exploratory mediation analyses across all three studies suggest that the formal decision to remain silent negatively impacted perceptions of the suspect, which, in turn, increased guilt judgments. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present studies suggest that preinterrogation decisions negatively impact judgments of guilt-not based on relevant legal factors, but assumptions arising from suspects' behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".